Whetman v. Whetman

Whetman v. Whetman, Case No. 971642-CA, Filed October 8, 1998. MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication)


IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----



Julia V. Whetman, Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

John D. Whetman, Defendant and Appellant. 


Case No. 971642-CA


F I L E D (October 8, 1998)   -----  

Second District, Farmington Department

The Honorable Glen R. Dawson

Attorneys: G. Scott Jensen, Ogden, for Appellant

Tom D. Branch, Salt Lake City, for Appellee -----  

Before Judges Billings, Greenwood, and Jackson.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant challenges the district court's equal division between the parties of the sole marital asset. Appellant asserts that the court should have awarded the entire asset to him because he had brought the asset into the marriage and had never intended to give Appellee half the equity in the asset, despite the fact that he had quitclaimed a half interest to her during the marriage. We affirm.

A district court's property division is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Endrody v. Endrody, 914 P.2d 1166, 1168-69 (Utah Ct. App. 1996). There is no fixed formula upon which to determine a division of property in a divorce action, and the trial court has considerable latitude in adjusting financial and property interests and its actions are entitled to a presumption of validity. Shepherd v. Shepherd, 876 P.2d 429, 433 (Utah Ct. App. 1994). This court will not disturb the trial court's decision unless it is clearly unjust or a clear abuse of discretion. Id.

The appropriate treatment of property brought into the marriage varies from case to case. Newmeyer v. Newmeyer, 745 P.2d 1276, 1277 (Utah 1987). In appropriate circumstances, a party may be awarded property which the other spouse brought into the marriage. Naranjo v. Naranjo, 751 P.2d 1144, 1147 (Utah Ct. App. 1988). The overriding concern is that the division be equitable, i.e., fairly divided in light of the contributions during the marriage and circumstances at divorce. Newmeyer, 745 P.2d at 1278. When acting as a trier of fact, the trial court is entitled to give conflicting testimony whatever weight it deems appropriate. Id.

Rather than adequately marshal the evidence and demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in light thereof, the Appellant selectively presents testimony he claims supports his argument and attempts to persuade this court to retry the case, and substitute its opinion for the trial court's. We decline. An appellant "may not simply reargue its position based on selective excerpts of evidence presented to the trial court." Promax Dev. Corp. v. Mattson, 943 P.2d 247, 255 (Utah Ct. App. 1997).

Based upon our review of the record in light of the standards set forth above and Appellant's failure to demonstrate otherwise, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the marital asset equally, and that the division was fair and equitable in light of the contributions during the marriage and circumstances at divorce. Accordingly, we affirm the district court.
 
 
 
 

______________________________

Judith M. Billings, Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge